DOCSLIB.ORG

Length of Rule Reviews by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Length of Rule Reviews by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Length of Rule Reviews by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Curtis W. Copeland Final Report: December 2, 2013 This report was prepared for the consideration of the Administrative Conference of the United States. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the members of the Conference or its committees. ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Table of Contents I. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................4 II. Introduction .................................................................................................................5 A. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 8 III. Background .................................................................................................................9 A. OIRA and Executive Order 12291 ......................................................................................... 10 B. Executive Order 12866 ......................................................................................................... 13 1. Subsequent Executive Orders .......................................................................................... 14 2. OIRA Review Process ........................................................................................................ 15 3. Return Letters .................................................................................................................. 18 4. Extensions of Reviews ...................................................................................................... 19 IV. Timeliness of OIRA Regulatory Reviews ........................................................................ 21 A. EO 12291 Reviews ................................................................................................................ 21 Table 1: Average Length of OIRA Reviews Under EO 12291 .................................................... 22 B. EO 12866 Reviews ................................................................................................................ 23 C. The Length of OIRA Regulatory Reviews (1994 – 2013) ....................................................... 24 1. Average Review Times ..................................................................................................... 24 Table 2: Average EO 12866 Review Times Rose Sharply in 2012 and 2013 ............................... 25 Table 3: Average EO 12866 Review Times Varied by Department/Agency .............................. 27 2. Completed Reviews Exceeding 90 Days/Six Months/One Year........................................ 29 Table 4: Record Numbers of Completed OIRA Reviews Took More Than Six Months in 2012 and First Half of 2013 .................................................................................................................. 29 3. Ongoing OIRA Reviews Exceeding One Year .................................................................... 31 D. Recent Improvements in Timeliness of OIRA Reviews .......................................................... 32 Table 5: Number of Lengthy Ongoing Reviews Has Declined in 2013...................................... 33 Table 6: Percentage of Reviews Completed in More than Six Months Has Declined for Recent Submissions ......................................................................................................................... 34 E. Actual Review Times May Be Longer Than Data Indicate .................................................... 34 1. Informal Reviews .............................................................................................................. 35 2. Obtaining OIRA’s Permission to Submit Rules.................................................................. 38 3. Delay in OIRA Logging in Formal Submissions ................................................................. 40 V. Perspectives on Causes of Lengthy OIRA Reviews ........................................................... 41 A. Concerns About Controversial Rules .................................................................................... 41 B. OIRA Desk Officers and Management .................................................................................. 42 C. Definition of “Significant” .................................................................................................... 45 D. Reviews by Other Agencies or Offices .................................................................................. 46 E. Extensions and Deadlines ..................................................................................................... 48 F. Withdrawals and Returns ..................................................................................................... 49 G. OIRA Staffing Issues ............................................................................................................. 50 Table 7: OMB and OIRA FTE Staffing Authorizations: FY 2001 through FY2014 ....................... 51 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................ 52 A. Is A Strict Review Limit the Answer? .................................................................................... 54 2 B. Making Timeliness A Priority ................................................................................................ 55 C. Return Letters and Review Letters ........................................................................................ 57 D. Informal Reviews and Transparency .................................................................................... 59 E. Submitting Agencies ............................................................................................................. 60 F. Non-Submitting Agencies and Offices................................................................................... 61 G. Submission of Significant Rules to OIRA............................................................................... 61 H. OIRA Staffing ........................................................................................................................ 62 Environmental Defense Fund v. Thomas ................................................................................... 64 Paralyzed Veterans of America ................................................................................................. 65 Most Recent Completed OIRA Reviews Are Coded “Consistent With Change” ....................... 66 OIRA Return Letters Since 2002 ............................................................................................ 68 Number of Final Rules Published Declined in 2012 and the First Half of 2013 ......................... 69 Longest Reviews Completed During First Half of 2013 ........................................................... 71 Rules Under Review at OIRA for More Than One Year (as of June 30, 2013)............................ 74 3 I. Executive Summary Pursuant to requirements in Executive Order 12866, issued by President Clinton in September 1993 and still in effect, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews hundreds of significant proposed and final rules before they are published in the Federal Register. The executive order states that OIRA’s reviews should be completed within 90 days, but says reviews may be extended by the Director of OMB for 30 days and at the request of the agency head. From 1994 through 2011, the average amount of time it took to complete a review was 50 days, and the highest average review time in any year was 62 days. However, in 2012, the average time for OIRA to complete reviews increased to 79 days, and in the first half of 2013, the average review time was 140 days – nearly three times the average for the period from 1994 through 2011. (Note: An increase in average review time for completed reviews in one year may reflect the closure of lengthy reviews that primarily occurred in previous years.) Some agencies were more affected by these increases in OIRA average review times than others, but by the first half of 2013, at least 17 departments and agencies had average review times of more than 90 days (up from only two departments in 2011). From 1994 through 2011, an average of fewer than 10 completed reviews per year (less than 2%) took more than six months; however, in the first half of 2013, 63 reviews (nearly 30%) took more than six months, and 27 (nearly 13%) took more than one year. Further, these statistics may understate the extent of the delays. According to senior employees in 11 departments and agencies (who were interviewed for this report anonymously and without indication of agency affiliation), OIRA has increasingly used “informal reviews” of rules prior to their formal submission, has required agencies to get OIRA approval before submitting rules, and has in some cases delayed recording the receipt of rules until some time after they were submitted by the agencies. (Note: The author discussed this report with OIRA officials, and the report reflects those discussions.) These senior agency employees provided a variety of perspectives as to why they believe OIRA review times had increased: (1) concerns by some in the Executive Office of the President (EOP) about the issuance of potentially costly or otherwise controversial rules during an election
Load more

Recommended publications
  • White House Review of Regulation: Myths and Realities
    WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF REGULATION: MYTHS AND REALITIES CASS R. SUNSTEIN 2013 REGULATION LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW SCHOOL 1 WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF REGULATION WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF REGULATION: MYTHS AND REALITIES † CASS R. SUNSTEIN Many Americans have never heard of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), located within the White House. Yet OIRA is deeply involved in making federal regulations and has long been criticized by scholars, attorneys, and activists for overly politicizing rulemaking, allowing special interests to influence public policy, and impeding desirable governmental action. Cass Sunstein responded to these criticisms of OIRA as the honored speaker at the Penn Program on Regulation’s annual regulation lecture held earlier this year at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. The Regulatory Review and the Penn Program on Regulation are grateful of Professor Sunstein for taking the time to visit Penn Law, sharing his insights on one of the most important institutions in the federal regulatory process, and allowing us to reproduce this lightly edited transcript of his remarks. -Editor. THE BIG IDEAS BEHIND OIRA I’m going to tell you a bit about the real world of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). And I’m just going to tell you facts. But it occurred to me as I looked over the remarks I had prepared that they have no ideas in them, so here are some things that are, if not ideas, at least quasi-ideas. The first idea has to do with an oft-quoted statement by Felix Frankfurter about how the history of Anglo American liberty is in large part a history of procedural safeguards.
    [Show full text]
  • Second-Order Participation in Administrative Law Miriam Seifter
    Second-Order Participation in Administrative Law EVIEW R Miriam Seifter ABSTRACT LA LAW LA LAW Public participation has long been a cornerstone of administrative law. Many UC administrative procedures require participation, and underlying normative theories embrace participation as a way to legitimate the administrative state. It is well recognized that interest groups dominate this participation. Yet the implications of interest-group dominance have been largely overlooked. Administrative law takes virtually no notice of how the dependence on interest groups affects the claimed value of participation. This Article argues that a close study of interest groups is essential to understanding, and ultimately reforming, administrative participation. It introduces the concept of second-order participation to describe the internal operation of interest groups. It then shows that second-order participation complicates every leading justification of administrative participation and the many practices built atop those justifications. These traditional conceptions of participation cohere only if groups actually speak for a membership, or at least provide information about how and for whom they work. Yet interest groups are seldom transparent, and, as this Article shows, they fall along a spectrum of internal governance with varying degrees of member involvement—with the most effective lobbyists tending to have less internal participation or no members at all. Attending to second-order participation thus provides a new framework for understanding
    [Show full text]
  • The Costs and Benefits of Cass Sunstein Obama’S Longtime Friend Is Poised to Oversee Federal Rulemaking, Leaving Many Liberals Concerned
    I N FO C U S The Costs and Benefits Of Cass Sunstein Obama’s longtime friend is poised to oversee federal rulemaking, leaving many liberals concerned BY REBECCA ADAMS siderable clout to the OIRA post, and observ- Last week brought much cheer to liber- ers expect he will make his imprint quickly als who anticipate a more aggressive regula- felt. “My prediction is that Cass will be one of tory posture from the new administration the most powerful OIRA heads,” said Richard than its predecessor. L. Revesz, dean of the New York University President Obama signed an executive or- School of Law, who has urged regulators to der that revoked changes to the regulatory account for the ethical impact of failing to review process that President George W. Bush protect future generations and whether rules instituted two years ago. The Bush order re- are needed to protect certain groups, such as quired federal agencies to submit more types the disadvantaged, from risks. of regulatory policies for review by the White Regulatory activists are anxious about what House Office of Management and Budget Sunstein will do with his power because his before they could be published, and it granted office has the authority to kill rules or force OMB’s political appointees increased author- agencies to rewrite them. And he clearly parts ity to get proposed rules rewritten. In addition company with several prominent Obama ap- to suspending those changes, Obama asked pointees in the White House and in the agen- OMB to produce the basis for a new rule-mak- cies his office will oversee.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing the Social Benefits of Regulatory Review
    Enhancing the Social Benefits of Regulatory Review Rethinking OIRA for the Next Administration October 2020 Jason A. Schwartz NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW Copyright © 2020 by the Institute for Policy Integrity. All rights reserved. Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law Wilf Hall, 139 MacDougal Street New York, New York 10012 Jason A. Schwartz is the Legal Director at the Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law. This report does not necessarily reflect the views of NYU School of Law, if any. Table of Contents Executive Summary i I. Refocus Regulatory Review on Maximizing Social Welfare 1 I.A. The Benefits of Regulatory Analysis and Centralized Review 2 Recommendation 1(A): Reaffirm the principles of rational decisionmaking from 5 President Clinton’s Executive Order 12,866 and President Obama’s Executive Order 13,563. I.B. Undoing Problematic Recent Distortions of the Regulatory Review Process 6 Recommendation 1(B): Repeal President Trump’s problematic Executive Orders 6 on the regulatory process—especially 13,771, 13,777, and 13,783—and any associated policies. Recommendation 1(C): Identify all problematic agency-level changes to cost-benefit 8 analysis and the regulatory process, especially at EPA and the Departments of Transportation and Energy II. Give Agencies Supplemental Guidance on How to Maximize Social Welfare 10 II.A. Make Distributional Analyses Meaningful and Consequential 11 Recommendation 2: Convene an Interagency Working Group on Distributional 11 Impacts to develop guidance on making distributional analysis more meaningful and consequential. II.B. Ensure That Important Unquantified Effects Do Not Count as Zero 13 Recommendation 3(A): Identify key unquantified effects and encourage research 13 to quantify them.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Administration
    ARTICLE PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION Elena Kagan TABLE OF CONTENTS I. NON-PRESIDENTIAL MECHANISMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL ..................... 2253 A. CongressionalControl ....................................................................................................... 2255 B. Self-Control ........................................................................................................................ 2260 C. Interest Group Control...................................................................................................... 2264 D . JudicialControl ................................................................................................................. 2269 II. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION - SOME BACKGROUND AND HISTORY ........ 2272 A. Early Efforts ....................................................................................................................... 2274 B. The R eagan Era ................................................................................................................. 2277 C. A Postscript........................................................................................................................ 2281 III. PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION IN THE CLINTON YEARS ................................. 2281 A. Tvo Examples..................................................................................................................... 2282 B. Techniques: R eview, D irectives, and Appropriation..................................................... 2284 i. Review ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 1986 the Harvard Law Review Association. Harvard Law
    Page 1 Copyright © 1986 The Harvard Law Review Association. Harvard Law Review MARCH, 1986 99 Harv. L. Rev. 1075 LENGTH: 6290 words COMMENTARY: WHITE HOUSE REVIEW OF AGENCY RULEMAKING. NAME: Christopher C. DeMuth n1 and Douglas H. Ginsburg n2 LEXISNEXIS SUMMARY: ... Since the earliest days of the Republic, presidents have taken the steps they deemed necessary to maintain some control over the activities of the executive branch -- to ensure that officials' statements and actions followed presidential policies and were consistent with each other. ... In the 1970s, growing dissatisfaction with government regulation led to formal presidential oversight of executive branch rulemaking. ... Just as the growth of direct federal spending led to presidential oversight of agency budgets in 1921, and just as the growth of legislation led to presidential oversight of agency positions on legislation in 1940, so the growth of regulation led to presidential oversight of the rulemaking process in the 1970s. ... The tension between an agency head's statutory responsibilities and his accountability to the president is not resolved in Executive Order 12,291 or in the earlier regulatory review orders. ... Critics charge that the OMB regulatory review staff is not and cannot be as intimate with the subject matter of a complex regulation as is the staff of the originating agency. ... It has been a strength because, like any other deliberative process, it can flourish only if the agency head or his delegate, and OMB as the president's delegate, are free to discuss frankly the merits of a regulatory proposal. ... Some critics have also argued that OMB's review of pre-regulatory initiatives under Executive Order 12,498 is especially inappropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • ARDEN ROWELL 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 333-6736 [email protected]
    ARDEN ROWELL 504 East Pennsylvania Avenue Champaign, IL 61820 (217) 333-6736 [email protected] ACADEMIC AND POLICY EXPERIENCE University of Illinois College of Law Champaign, IL • Current position: Professor, 2015 - present o University Scholar, 2015 - 2018 (a University-level appointment awarded to recognize “excellence in teaching, scholarship, and service”) • Past positions: Associate Professor of Law, 2013-2015; Assistant Professor of Law, 2010-2013 o Richard W. and Marie L. Corman Scholar, 2010-2015 o Arnold O. Beckman Research Award, 2011 University of Chicago Law School Chicago, IL • Visiting Professor, scheduled Spring 2020 (cancelled due to COVID-19) Duke Law School Durham, NC • Visiting Professor, Spring 2018 Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA • Visiting Professor, Autumn 2015-Spring 2016 Oxford University, Worcester College Oxford, UK • Visiting Research Associate, Trinity 2015 & Trinity 2016 Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. • Intergovernmental Personnel Act Assignment, February-March 2015, at the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) University of Chicago Law School Chicago, IL • Bigelow Fellow and Lecturer in Law, 2008-10 EDUCATION University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 2006 University of Washington, B.A. in Anthropology/Archaeology, 2001 • Matriculated at the age of 13 and graduated at the age of 18. BOOKS • Arden Rowell and Kenworthey Bilz, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (NYU Press, 2021). • Arden Rowell and Josephine van Zeben, A GUIDE TO U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (University of California Press, 2021). • Josephine van Zeben and Arden Rowell, A GUIDE TO EU ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (University of California Press, 2021). 1 PRINT PUBLICATIONS • Arden Rowell, Quantitative Valuation in Environmental Law, 96 NOTRE DAME LAW REVIEW 1539-1558 (2021) (symposium).
    [Show full text]
  • 52 Experiments with Regulatory Review the Political and Economic Inputs Into State Rulemakings
    52 Experiments with Regulatory Review The Political and Economic Inputs into State Rulemakings Jason A Schwartz Report No. 6 November 2010 Copyright © 2010 by the Institute for Policy Integrity. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Institute for Policy Integrity New York University School of Law 139 MacDougal Street, Third Floor New York, New York 10012 Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................ii Introduction .............................................................................................1 PART ONE: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Trying To Go 1. Weighing the Options ...................................................................................10 2. History and Models .......................................................................................31 3. Previous Studies on State Practices ............................................................44 4. Lessons from Federal Practice .....................................................................54 5. Principles for Evaluation and Comparison ...............................................67 PART TWO: Where We Are Now 6. Research Methodology .................................................................................73 7. Grades and Comparative Charts .................................................................79 8. State-by-State Summaries ...........................................................................146 PART THREE: Where to Go and How to Get
    [Show full text]
  • Making Bureaucracies Think Distributively: Reforming the Administrative State with Action-Forcing Distributional Review
    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 7 Issue 1 2017 Making Bureaucracies Think Distributively: Reforming the Administrative State with Action-Forcing Distributional Review Kenta Tsuda Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Kenta Tsuda, Making Bureaucracies Think Distributively: Reforming the Administrative State with Action- Forcing Distributional Review, 7 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 131 (2017). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol7/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. \\jciprod01\productn\M\MEA\7-1\MEA104.txt unknown Seq: 1 16-MAR-18 11:02 MAKING BUREAUCRACIES THINK DISTRIBUTIVELY: REFORMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE WITH ACTION- FORCING DISTRIBUTIONAL REVIEW Kenta Tsuda* ABSTRACT: This Article proposes that agencies analyze the distributional impacts of ma- jor regulatory actions, subject to notice-and-comment procedures and judicial re- view. The proposal responds to the legitimacy crisis that the administrative state currently faces in a period of widening economic inequality. Other progressive reform proposals emphasize the need for democratization of agencies. But these reforms fail to address the two fundamental pitfalls of bureaucratic governance: the “knowledge problem”—epistemic limitations on centrally coordinated decision making—and the “incentives problem”—the challenge of aligning the incentives of administrative agents and their political principals.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Economic Impacts of the U.S. Regulatory System
    Evaluating the Economic Impacts of the U.S. Regulatory System Hilary Gelfond June 2020 M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series | No. 148 The views expressed in the M-RCBG Associate Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government or of Harvard University. The papers in this series have not undergone formal review and approval; they are presented to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business & Government Weil Hall | Harvard Kennedy School | www.hks.harvard.edu/mrcbg Evaluating the Economic Impacts of the U.S. Regulatory System Hilary Gelfond, MPP Candidate 2020, Harvard Kennedy School Policy Analysis Exercise March 31, 2020 PAE Project Agency: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget Agency Contact: Dominic Mancini, OIRA Deputy Administrator Faculty Advisor: Joseph Aldy Seminar Leader: John Haigh This PAE reflects the views of the author and should not be viewed as representing the views of the Office of Management and Budget, nor those of Harvard University or any of its faculty. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in Public Policy. Evaluating the Economic Impacts of the U.S. Regulatory System 2 Acknowledgements Thank you to Dominic Mancini and his staff at the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the opportunity to collaborate on this project. This report would not be possible without guidance from HKS faculty.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups
    Advance The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups Volume 6 Table of ConTenTs | fall 2012 Restrictive State and Local Immigration Laws: Solutions in Search of Problems Pratheepan Gulasekaram and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan Title IX and the New Spending Clause Emily J. Martin The New Wave of Election Regulation: Burden without Benefit Justin Levitt Promoting Opportunity through Impact Statements: A Tool for Policymakers to Assess Equity Alan Jenkins, Juhu Thukral, Kevin Hsu, Nerissa Kunakemakorn, and Megan Haberle Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan: Recusing Freedom of Speech Jeffrey M. Shaman The Converging Logic of Federalism and Equality in Same-Sex Marriage Recognition Mae Kuykendall Scapegoating Social Security Disability Claimants (and the Judges Who Evaluate Them) Jon C. Dubin and Robert E. Rains “After” the War on Drugs: The Fair Sentencing Act and the Unfinished Drug Policy Reform Agenda Kara Gotsch With Religious Liberty for All: A Defense of the Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Coverage Mandate Frederick Mark Gedicks 1333 H St., NW, 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 www.ACSLaw.org 202-393-6181 Copyright © 2012 American Constitution Society for Law and Policy Advance The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups Table of ConTenTs 1 Introduction Restrictive State and Local Immigration Laws: 5 Solutions in Search of Problems Pratheepan Gulasekaram and S. Karthick Ramakrishnan Title IX and the New Spending Clause 23 Emily J. Martin The New Wave of Election Regulation: Burden without Benefit 39 Justin Levitt Promoting Opportunity through Impact Statements: 61 A Tool for Policymakers to Assess Equity Alan Jenkins, Juhu Thukral, Kevin Hsu, Nerissa Kunakemakorn, and Megan Haberle Nevada Commission on Ethics v.
    [Show full text]
  • Responding to Agency Avoidance of Oira
    RESPONDING TO AGENCY AVOIDANCE OF OIRA NINA A. MENDELSON AND JONATHAN B. WIENER* INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 448 I. PRESIDENTIAL OVERSIGHT OF AGENCY REGULATION THROUGH OIRA REVIEW .............. 454 II. AGENCY AVOIDANCE ........................................... 463 A. Prior Literature .............................................. 464 B. Incentives and Strategic Behavior by Agencies and OIRA ....................................... 468 1. Presidential and OIRA Incentives to Require Review of Agency Action ....... 469 2. Incentives for Agencies to Cooperate with OIRA Review .................................. 471 3. Incentives for Agencies to Avoid OIRA ......................................................... 472 4. Dislike of Perceived Institutional Intrusion on Agency Policymaking ...... 473 5. Dislike of Changes or Delays in Regulatory Outcomes ............................. 476 6. Agency-Oversight Relations as a Repeated Game ....................................... 478 C. A Broader Typology of Potential Avoidance Tactics ......................................... 481 1. Understating Impact or Splitting an “Economically Significant” Rule into Smaller Rules ................................... 483 2. Guidance Documents ............................. 485 * Authors listed in alphabetical order by middle initial. Wiener is William R. & Thomas L. Perkins Professor of Law and Professor of Public Policy and Environ- mental Policy, Duke University; and University Fellow, Resources for the Future. Mendelson
    [Show full text]